But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.(2 Timothy 3:13)

Evangelical Christianity is false Christianity and leads to hell. Paul Washer is just one of many who promotes some of evangelicalism's "damnable heresies" (2 Pet 2:1 KJV).

Washer1 is a slick one. For those who can see the prevailing Satanic false Christianity of today (2 Timothy 3:1-5; 4:3-4), he is readily manifest; for Washer is engulfed in it. But those caught in that broad way (Matthew 7:13-23) are sadly deceived by Washer and the likes. Please don't be. Washer may be passionate,2 but the passion is for a false way (Psalm 119:104, 128).

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

I. Washer's Fundamental Fallacy

Jesus said,

It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4; see also 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 "every thought")

Salvation (life) is had via simply faith in God's Word, as Abraham believed what God said and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23).3 This is the real gospel of all time. But, false teachers like Washer have their own ideas.

Washer writes,

Secondly, it has become popular opinion that Christians should lay aside their doctrine and unite around their common faith in Christ. However, the harsh reality is that there are many different versions of Christ being proclaimed on the earth today by those who claim to be His followers. How can we distinguish the true Christ from the multitude of false christs except through a careful study of the Scriptures and a faithful application of its doctrine? Are we to preach a Christ to the nations that is so general or vague that we fill the world and the church with countless contradictory opinions regarding His person and work? Unity cannot logically be founded upon our common confession of an undefined Christ and contradictory opinions regarding the fundamentals of the Christian faith. (www.heartcrymissionary.com/heartcry-magazine-archive/post/missions:-a-theological-endeavor, underlining added)

The words above may sound good ("smooth words" Romans 16:18), but what does Washer mean by “the fundamentals of the Christian faith”? In this same article Washer continues a little later with,

Fourthly, it has become popular opinion that Christians should only concern themselves with agreement regarding major doctrines and not sweat the small stuff. There is some truth to the famous quotation: “In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.” [19]4 However, there are also some inherent dangers. One of the most serious problems has to do with the current trend in Christianity which increasingly depreciates the importance of absolutes. As this trend continues, Christians relegate more and more doctrines to the “small” category. Doctrines that were previously held to be absolute essentials are no longer considered worth arguing about. (ibid.)

In the theological evangelical camp in which Washer abides, there are certain “doctrines” which they call “the fundamentals of the Christian faith” or the “essentials” by which they may properly have “unity” and fellowship with one another. They believe certain Bible doctrines are “essential” for salvation and fellowship, and other Bible doctrines are non-essential.5

John MacArthur,6 who is in the same evangelical camp as Washer, helps explain.7 MacArthur writes,

All who call themselves Christian should agree that there is a body of doctrine that is non-negotiable. The articles of faith that make up this constitutional body of truth are the very essence of "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). These are the real fundamentals of the faith.8 They are doctrines so indispensable to true Christianity that we ought to break fellowship with those who profess Christianity but who deny them (2 Cor. 6:14-17). [Reckless Faith, p. 106-107 copyright 1994, and Truth Matters, p. 83-84, copyright 2004, underlining added]

Later MacArthur writes,

It is not my purpose here to attempt to give an exhaustive list of fundamental doctrines. To do so would be beyond the scope of this book, and certainly beyond my own abilities as a theologian. As Witsius has written: "To point out the articles necessary to salvation, and precisely determine their number, is a task, if not utterly impossible, at least extremely difficult." (Reckless Faith p. 115, Truth Matters, p. 91, underlining added)

So, MacArthur says they are “necessary to salvation,” but he can't tell you what they all are! If they truly are “necessary to salvation” (as he claims), there is no way MacArthur and company could ever know they are saved, since he himself doesn't even know what they all are. Yet, they are “necessary to salvation.” If you can't name them all, you certainly can't know if you believe them all. Nevertheless, this is the theological false way in which Washer abides.

Washer illustrates this commonly practiced hypocritical ecumenism (which is what this “fundamentals” lie breeds) via his acceptance of both Arminians and Calvinists as brothers in Christ.9 Classical Arminianism and Calvinism are two diametrically opposed gospels on five different points of the gospel. Paul cursed, twice over (Galatians 1:8-9), anyone who preached any other gospel, and his context was on one point, the requirement to keep the law or not as a matter of righteous living (Galatians 3:1-7). Classical Arminians and Calvinists disagree on five points of the gospel (e.g. Christ's death, free will [a works gospel], etc.). Yet, as is so common among evangelical circles, both are considered in the Truth, in Christ (John 14:6), even though they don't agree on such basic gospel truths (e.g. who Jesus died for, election, free will, man's lost state, etc.).

Although Washer considers such matters on the gospel “essential themes which make up the very core of the gospel”10 he nonetheless ecumenically accepts Arminians as brothers in Christ who don't agree with his Calvinistic doctrines. Washer's “essential themes which make up the very core of the gospel” include,

the justice of God, the radical depravity of man, the blood atonement, the nature of true conversion, and the biblical basis of assurance. (www.heartcrymissionary.com/heartcry-magazine-archive/post/missions:-a-theological-endeavor)

All of these are at the very heart of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. And there are, at times, a mixture and variation on these matters in both camps. But as Spurgeon (see below), Washer and the like deny, in practice, their own “essentials” (“fundamentals”). Even though Washer bemoans it, he himself also hypocritically follows the “popular opinion that Christians should lay aside their doctrine and unite around their common faith in Christ” even though the doctrines lain aside are “essential themes which make up the very core of the gospel.”

Charles Spurgeon, who many think to be the “prince of preachers,” and whom Washer reveres,11 is a classic example of this “damnable” heresy (2 Peter 2:1 KJV) and unholy hypocrisy.12 Spurgeon, who was a self-proclaimed Calvinist, repudiated the God of Arminians.13 He called their doctrine “heresy,” resulting in “the Bible is a lie.” He believed he would “be an infidel at once,” if he believed their doctrine. And, of their gospel he explicitly wrote,

I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for theman himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon's Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in "A Defence Of Calvinism," The Banner Of Truth Trust edition, bold added)15

So, according to Spurgeon's own words, even though Wesley preached a false God, a false gospel, and if anyone believed it (as Wesley) he would “be an infidel at once,” this preacher (Wesley) was so godly he could “be added to the number of the twelve.” This hypocritical foolishness fits Spurgeon's “sufficiently wide” road to heaven16 and is consistent with his view that “there will be more in Heaven than in hell.”17 Spurgeon, a man who is respected by John MacArthur, Washer, and so many others in the “evangelical” community, preached and lived the exact opposite of the gospel and doctrine (teaching) of Christ (Matthew 7:13-27; 2 John 9).

Most evangelicals will give closed ears to the words above or excuse them away (2 Timothy 4:3-4). But, that is to no surprise. Men hate the light and do not come to it (John 3:19-20).

In the same article as quoted above Washer bemoans that,

it has become popular opinion that Christians should lay aside their doctrine and unite around their common faith in Christ. (www.heartcrymissionary.com/heartcry-magazine-archive/post/missions:-a-theological-endeavor)

That is exactly what Washer does. He is a hypocrite who “unites” with those who deny doctrines that he believes “make up the very core of the gospel.” Paul Washer is without doctrinal holiness, without which "no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14; John 14:6 "Truth").

II. Washer's Traditional False God

A. Not Less

Washer is not unique in his error. He does well in following man's erroneous theology (as illustrated above), and he does so also by preaching a false God. In his ebook The One True God, in which he denies the One True God (2 Peter 2:1 “denying the Lord who bought them”), Washer writes,

The Son is not less than the Father, nor is the Spirit less than the Son. (The One True God, Copyright 2004 by Paul David Washer, third edition, p. 15, underlining added)

That's not the Son of Scripture. The Son of God said,

My Father is greater than I.(John 14:28)

Jesus doesn't lie (Titus 1:2). The Father being “greater than” the Son = the Son is less (great) than the Father. And, this is not unique to the incarnation, for,

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8; see also Malachi 3:6)

Even in eternity the Father's greatness in comparison to the Son will be manifest,

when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

B. Not Corporeal

Furthermore, additional commonly taught false teaching about God can be found in this same ebook where Washer claims,

God is not material or corporeal (i.e. He does not possess a physical body). [ibid., p. 19]

This is a bold-faced lie, and again a denial of "the Lord who bought" him. This can plainly be seen via God Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God. The Scriptures make that clear:

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).18

And it says of Him,

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godheadbodily (Colossians 2:9).

God (“all the fullness of the Godhead”) possesses a physical body (“bodily”) in the person of God Himself, Jesus Christ. This is nothing new, for He was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), and He has always been "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Truly,

Jesus Christ [God] is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

God does not change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 1:12).

In his reasoning for this false doctrine that God “does not possess a physical body” Washer argues,

Two of the greatest implications of this truth are: (1) God is not confined to any of the physical restraints so common to humanity, (ibid.).

All of the fullness of the Godhead is both confined19 in Christ's physical body (Luke 24:39; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:5 “the Man”), and not confined by anything (1 Kings 8:27; Isaiah 57:15).

Someone might argue Washer is only talking about the Father not having a body. But, this too is bogus, for Jesus said,

He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9).

What were people looking at when they had “seen the Father”? The Father in a body, “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwells in Christ bodily (Colossians 2:9).

The Son is “the Son of the Man” (literally in the Greek, Matthew 8:20; etc.). That Man is the Father, who is one of “two men” (John 8:17-18), who is a “man of war” (Exodus 15:3), whose “hair of His head“ is like pure wool (Daniel 7:9), whose “garment was white as snow” (Daniel 7:9).

Washer further argues,

and (2) God is not visible and therefore should never be degraded with images made by men. (ibid.)

Indeed, but it was not a degradation by man when God made both male and female in His image (Genesis 1:26), when He was “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8), when all three of Him ate by the tree (Genesis 18), when He wrestled Jacob (Genesis 32:22-30), when He spoke to Moses “face to face” (Exodus 33:11), when He, the “Man,” commanded Joshua (Joshua 5:13-6:2), when He identified Himself as “the Man” (Judges 13:11), when Jesus identified His Father and Himself as “two men” (John 8:17-18). Jesus Christ is indeed the invisible God (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:14-16), whom “No one has seen . . . at any time” (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). Nevertheless, He surely has been seen (e.g. Genesis 32:30 Judges 13:22; Isaiah 6:1; Amos 9:1; John 14:7-9).

Washer reasons these revelations away saying,

At times, the Scriptures speak of God as if He possessed a physical body. (ibid.)

So, Washer admits the teaching of Scripture, but then argues against it.

There are references to His arms, back, breath, ears, eyes, face, feet, fingers, etc. How do we explain these references in light of the truth that God is spirit? In theology, these references are considered anthropomorphic [Greek: anthrópos, man + morphé, form] expressions. In other words, God is simply attributing to Himself human characteristics in order to communicate a truth about Himself in a way that men can comprehend. (ibid.)

Washer says,

How do we explain these references in light of the truth that God is spirit? (ibid.)

How about not explaining them and just accepting that He is both Spirit and physical (as men are, who were created in His image)?20 It doesn't say, “God is only Spirit.” Jesus Christ is God, and therefore John 4:24 speaks of Him. Jesus is Spirit, “a life-giving spirit,” as 1 Corinthians 15:45 explicitly says. Jesus is also invisible, as He is “the King eternal, immortal, invisible,” “who alone is wise” (1 Timothy 1:17; see also 6:14-16). Let the Scriptures stand, as written, as Jesus does in John 10:34-35.

In John 10:34-35 Jesus well illustrates how God wants us to take His word, that is, as written, not explained away (Proverbs 3:5). Washer explains away the many references of God's physical characteristics with one broad sweeping unbiblical (Proverbs 30:5-6) concept of an “anthropomorphic” doctrine of man. It's certainly not God's doctrine. The Word nowhere teaches,

God is simply attributing to Himself human characteristics in order to communicate a truth about Himself in a way that men can comprehend.

That concept is not found in holy writ. But, you will find it in man's commentaries on Scripture, as they “twist to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

Washer continues in his argument,

For example, the Bible speaks of God’s “wings,” and of His people “hiding under the shadow of His wings” (Exodus 19:4; Ruth 2:12; Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). It would be absurd to interpret such statements literally. (ibid., underlining added)

Man's idea of absurdity is no standard for understanding Scripture. Man himself is absurd (Ecclesiastes 9:3 "madness"). Absurdity does not do well in discerning absurdity. Plus, God has already told us we will think His Word is absurd (1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 3:18-20). His thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). We are mad (Psalm 14:1-3). He is Truth (John 14:6). He, Scripture (John 1:1), is to interpret Scripture (Psalm 36:9; 119:130; Proverbs 6:23).21 It is not to be by a measure of what men think to be absurd or not (Matthew 7:2).

III. Washer's Bad Hermeneutics

As illustrated above, Washer has some seriously bad hermeneutics, and sad to say, he is typical of what is found in his “evangelical” camp. Nonetheless, because of this bad approach to the Word, a whole host of Scriptures are brushed aside, disregarded, and explained away.

Another example of this eisegesis22 is found in that same ebook, The One True God, where he writes,

Note: If God is invisible, how do we explain the passages of Scripture where He seems to reveal Himself in a visible form? To answer, we must first understand two principles of biblical interpretation. First, the Bible does not contradict itself. Second, the passages of Scripture that are difficult to interpret with certainty should be interpreted in light of those passages whose interpretation is unmistakable. The Scriptures clearly state that God is invisible, therefore the “visible” appearances of God in the Scriptures (with the exception of the incarnation of the Son of God) should be interpreted as “visions”—symbolic representations of spiritual reality. Ezekiel tells us (1:1) that “the heavens were opened” and he “saw visions of God.” In verse 28, the prophet summarizes these visions as “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” In Daniel 7:9-15, Daniel sees a symbolic vision of God the Father as the “Ancient of Days.” In Luke 3:22, John the Baptist sees a vision of the heavens “opening” and the Holy Spirit descending with the appearance of a dove (the symbolism is obvious). [p. 20]

First, where does the Bible teach this is how God wants us to understand or interpret His Word? Nowhere (Proverbs 30:5-6). Second, whose standard of “contradiction” are we supposed to follow? Man's? Therein is the error. Washer sets up his own standard of contradiction to interpret the Bible. What is a contradiction to one man, may not necessarily be a contradiction to another. Thus, this interpretative process rests upon the minds of men and what they consider a contradiction. There is plenty in Scripture that is contradictory in the mind of man. Afterall, He tells us,

My thoughts are not your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8).

Thus, Washer and men like him (which is common course for fallen men) brush aside what they find contradictory, explain away, and find themselves down a road of utter falsehood, because of this foolish, unstable, subjective approach to Scripture.

Third, where does the Bible teach the unmistakable interprets the difficult? Nowhere (Proverbs 30:5-6). This, again, is subject to man's subjective opinion on what he finds unmistakable and difficult. This is a great segue right into the traditions of men (Colossians 2:8), where their traditions have well established “unmistakable” passages, via their accepted tradition, into the “difficult” passages in which, perhaps, no particular well established tradition on any given particular passage may be found. Either way, with or without tradition, this principle of interpretation is faulty, due to it's very foundation. It rests upon man (Jeremiah 17:5), his idea of unmistakable and difficult, rather than on God and simply accepting and believing what He says; whether it fits into “your own understanding” or not (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Take, for example, Washer's above illustration “that God is invisible.” Washer claims these are the “unmistakable” passages, that is, the invisible passages.23 And thus, he puts the visible passages, that is, passages that speak of the visible aspects of God, as the “difficult” passages. Yet, just the reverse could be just as “true.” In fact, there are overwhelmingly more passages (“unmistakable”) on the visible aspects of God than the invisible. By whose standard is the one group “unmistakable” and the other “difficult”? Washer (and many like him) has made this choice, not Scripture, not God, not Christ, not His Spirit (1 John 2:27), not the Truth (John 14:6).

And so, via his religious tradition, as Catholics24 and Protestants25 before him, Washer brushes aside the physical aspects of God, which are quite explicit and abundant in Scripture, with the broad brush of “symbolic,” when holy writ makes no such demand (Proverbs 30:5-6). Therefore, Washer and company are blind to the One True God whose Throne is indeed “a fiery flame” (Daniel 7:9; Hebrews 10:31) and “its wheels a burning fire,” Who has “the hair of His head like pure wool” and “His garment white as snow.” Truly, Washer and the likes do not know the One True God.

This is a good example of what Paul spoke of when he said,

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, . . . (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Washer is still caught in the corrupt wisdom of the world, as 2 Peter 2 says,

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption (2 Peter 2:19).

Moreover, Washer arbitrarily exempts the incarnation of Christ as an “exception” to his arbitrary principle of hermeneutics. And again, according to whom or what passage, what precept taught in the Word, justifies this “exception”? Someone else could just as well argue the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) in which records God walking on the earth (as He did in the garden) are likewise “symbolic” and not physical realities. The very same hermeneutical argument could be used based on the very same criteria.

For example, God is unmistakably invisible. He is also unmistakably immortal. He also unmistakably cannot be tempted (James 1:13). He is also unmistakably immutable (Malachi 3:6). He is also unmistakably omniscient (Psalm 147:5). He is also unmistakably perfect (Psalm 18:30). That makes it “difficult” to have God, the untemptable, unchangeable, all-knowing, perfect, “immortal, invisible” “King” (1 Timothy 1:17), be virgin born, have a body, walk the earth, “increase in wisdom” (Luke 2:52), be tempted (Hebrews 4:15), suffer, shed blood (Acts 20:28), become sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), die on a cross, be brought back to life, and appear to over 500 people (1 Corinthians 15:6). Such things can be “difficult” when the “unmistakable” overshadows the “difficult.”26

Finally, Washer (and the rest) misses the obvious. The very One he exempts is the very One who dictates the other passages are indeed physical. Jesus is God. He has always been and always will be God
in the flesh (Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 13:8; 2 John 7).27 He is both visible and invisible, physical and Spirit. He does not change (Malachi 3:6).

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)28

2 Anyone familiar with Washer's preaching is familiar with his passionate style. See, for example, his famous message on youtube entitled, “Paul Washer - Shocking Message” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8), or his message to The Master's Seminary students (www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6hYEqpQxds), or see his more recent message to the pack of wolves at MacArthur's 2014 “Shepherd's Conference” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep3rsRRT16c).

3 When it comes to the salvation of the soul, it matters not how much a person knows. It matters where the trust is. Is it in God and what He says (Jeremiah 17:7)? Or, is it in man and what He says (Jeremiah 17:5)? The former saves (James 1:21). The latter damns (2 Peter 2:1 “damnable heresies” KJV). Doctrine simply reveals where the trust is. The one who believes God, “hears God's words” (John 8:47). Those who do not believe, “do not hear” (John 8:47).

19 Although commonly attributed to Augustine, there is much debate as to the actual author of this famous quote. It is interesting that this quote is cited by “a dizzying variety of incompatible Christian traditions” (Web article posted by Steve Perisho, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html).

5 This is the core doctrine and the core false gospel of those caught on the theological broad way (Matthew 7:13-14). They think and claim and teach and live and promote that, when it comes to doctrine (the teaching of Scripture), there is such a thing as “the fundamentals of the Christian faith.” They each have their own man made list (Matthew 15:8-9) of “fundamentals,” and this is foundational to their man-made (and Satanic) gospel. For more on this broad way, see "You Think You've Saved, But You're Not!"

6John MacArthur is pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA, and is also the President of The Master's College and Seminary.

7 This is not to say Washer would admit to agreeing with the MacArthur quotes given. If he doesn't agree, then it simply exemplifies both of their ecumenical ways, since they associate with each other and consider each other brothers in Christ; and the quotes given are concerning what is "necessary to salvation." Also, MacArthur has Washer speak at his church and Seminary, and Washer recommends MacArthur's books (e.g. www.heartcrymissionary.com/reading-list).

8 There is no consensus among evangelical leaders on just what exactly the “fundamentals” or “essentials” are, as MacArthur well illustrates (keep reading). If they don't know what they all are, there's no way they can have consensus on them, other than a consensus of ambiguity.

9 This was illustrated on Washer's home page where he posted on 7-11-14 the beginning of a favorable article on Charles Wesley, an Arminian preacher, and in the post just below on the same home page a favorable article about a missionary who presently was attending a Reformed church. Reformed theology has its roots in Calvinism.

One of the greatest crimes of this generation of Christians is its neglect of the gospel, and it is from this neglect that all our other maladies spring forth. The lost world is not so much “gospel hardened” as it is “gospel ignorant,” because many of those who proclaim the gospel are also ignorant of its most basic truths. Absent from too many pulpits at home and on the mission field are the essential themes which make up the very core of the gospel: the justice of God, the radical depravity of man, the blood atonement, the nature of true conversion, and the biblical basis of assurance. In many cases, the gospel message has been reduced to a few creedal statements, conversion has become a mere human decision, and assurance of salvation is pronounced over anyone who prays the sinner’s prayer. This is a great crime. (www.heartcrymissionary.com/heartcry-magazine-archive/post/missions:-a-theological-endeavor, underlining added)

11 Take a look at Washer's website. For example, he sells books by and of Spurgeon and talks favorably about him quite a bit, which is not surprising considering the theological camp in which Washer abides. You could also google, site:heartcrymissionary.com + "Spurgeon" to see the extent to which Spurgeon is mentioned at heartcrymissionary.com.

12Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: (Hebrews 12:14)

I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence. (Sermons Preached and Revised by the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, sixth series, p. 241)

What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ, - the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

"If ever it should come to pass,

That sheep of Christ might fall away,

My fickle, feeble soul, alas!

Would fall a thousand times a day."

If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally. (C. H. Spurgeon's Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 168-169 in "A Defence Of Calvinism," The Banner Of Truth Trust edition, bold added)

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for theman himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon's Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in "A Defence Of Calvinism," The Banner Of Truth Trust edition, bold added)

What is the reason why there are so many sects in the world? Surely it must be because we don't follow the guidance of the Spirit of God. If we followed the Word of God and the will of God in all things, we should be very much more alike than we are. I do not think that even then we should all run in the same groove, for the road to heaven may be sufficiently wideto have several different paths in it, and yet shall they all be in the same way and in the same road. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 61, p. 514-515, Sept., 28, 1870, bold added)

I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence", and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. (C. H. Spurgeon's Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 171, in "A Defence Of Calvinism," bold added)

20 Men are referenced as “spirit” in, for example, 1 Corinthians 16:7 (more literally, “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit” Ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ἓν πνεῦμά ἐστιν); Hebrews 12:9; 1 Peter 3:19; 1 John 4:1-3.

21 Wings are indeed used as a figure of speech (see e.g. Ruth 2:12; 3:9). Yet, there is nothing in Scripture demanding God does not have wings. Believers in the future will have wings (Isaiah 40:31), and it says, “when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). See also Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32.

22"the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas" (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis)

To see, then, and to be seen, is a property of bodies, which certainly will not be appropriately applied either to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit, in their mutual relations with one another. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 277, "Origen De Principiis")

But because the speech which Paul useth seemeth to be somewhat hard, we must see in what sense he saith that God purchased the Church with his blood. For nothing is more absurd than to feign or imagine God to be mortal or to have a body. (www.ccel.org/print/calvin/calcom37/viii.v, underlining added)

26Nevertheless, “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). Godliness existed before the incarnation of John 1:14.

27 Yes, on the cross the “I am” (John 8:58), the “I Am Who I Am” (Exodus 3:14), “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8) became sin itself (2 Corinthians 5:21).